A. Venkatramaiah vs Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. and Another

Lingaraja Rath, J.—The Writ Petitioner is the appellant. Against the judgment of the learned single Judge rejecting his claim for promotion as Senior Field Demonstrator, in the respondent-Organisation with effect from 1-1-1977, this appeal has been preferred.

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Field Assistant in the respondent-Organisation on 16-10-1971. Prior to it, he had worked as a Field Man for 5 years in the Agricultural Stations, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University. Thereafter, he had worked for 3 years as Field Man on Model Agronomical experiments on ryot fields in West Godavari and Guntur Districts and had also worked for one year as Field Man in Pilot Survey on Pests and diseases on paddy in West Godavari District and came to be appointed in the respondent-Organisation with 9 years of experience, and it is his case that in recognition of his past service, he was granted four advance increments in the time scale of pay. He made a move, after he was promoted as Junior Field Demonstrator, for being promoted as a Senior Field Demonstrator with effect from 1-1-1977. The Area Manager of the respondents recommended his case for promotion on 17-5-1980 to the Assistant Personnel Officer stating that the appellant had been exempted from passing Agricultural Diploma Course for appointment as Senior Field Demonstrator and was also exempted from undergoing farm training course, which is equivalent to Agricultural Diploma required for appointment as Sub-assistant in the Agricultural Department, at present, Village Development Officer in the Panchayat Raj Department. As no action was taken, the writ petition was filed. In the counter-affidavit, the stand adopted by the respondent was that for promotion to the rank of senior Field Demonstrator, the requirements were any one of the following :

(1) Matriculation with a Diploma in Agriculture and 5 years experience.

(2) Graduate with 5 years experience.

(3) Matriculation with a certificate course in Agriculture and 7 years experience.

(4) Matriculation with Agricultural subjects and 3 years experience.

(5) Under stagnation scheme - 10 years experience.

As the appellant did not meet any of the requirements, he was not promoted; but was due to be promoted as per Clause No. 5 mentioned in supra, in the year 1981 when he would have completed 10 years of service as Field Assistant. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the exemption granted to the appellant was only for the purpose of his appointment as Field Man or Field Assistant, but that the exemption was not applicable to the promotional posts and hence the appellant could not claim promotion on the basis of the exemption given earlier.

Mr. Viswanadham, the learned Counsel for the appellant, strenuously urges that as the back service of the appellant rendered for 9 years and recognised and he had been granted four increments for the reason, it must be taken that the exemption granted to him from passing the Diploma in Agriculture course was good for all times, and hence, he was entitled to be promoted as Senior Field Demonstrator even under the first requirement as the appellant had passed Matriculation and got 5 years of experience also.

It is not in dispute that the appellant had 5 years experience. It appears from the judgment under appeal that exemption was granted to the appellant, as per exemption letter dated 17-3-1962, in the following words :

"Under the powers delegated to the Heads of Departments in G.O.Ms. No. 2024, General Administration (Services-A) Department dated 26-12-1958, the relevant rules are hereby relaxed with effect from 2-1-1960 in favour of the candidates mentioned in the Annexure to this order, so as to enable their regular appointment in the posts now held by them under emergency provision".

The learned single Judge was of the view that the exemption was given only to make the regular appointment under emergency provision, but it was not stated that the exemption would enure for future promotions also.

After giving our anxious consideration, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the learned single Judge. That educational qualification can be the basis for a valid classification for appointment/promotion to a higher post has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the decision rendered in The State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa and Others, . It is of course true that persons appointed to a rank after relaxation of the educational qualifications belong to a common cadre and that thereafter no discrimination can be made within the cadre so far as future promotions are concerned. But, where promotion is made dependent upon possession of a specific qualification, the qualification so required being necessary to the requirements of the post, the classification is valid and no exception can be taken to the prescribed qualifications. In such a case, there cannot be any plea of discrimination within the cadre advanced by the persons not possessing the qualifications. A question similar as the present one, was considered by their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Distt. Registrar, Palghat v. M. B. Koyyakutty, AIR 1979 SC 1060, wherein the promotion of the respondent as Upper Division Clerk had been assailed on the ground of his not possessing the minimum general educational qualification. The Court took note of the fact that the respondent had been appointed as Lower Division Clerk in relaxation of the qualification and as no special qualification were laid down for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk and the Lower Division Clerks were appointed to be considered for promotion in accordance with seniority subject to the fitness, there was no bar for the promotion of the respondent. The decision is an authority for the proposition that if qualifications are prescribed for promotion, those qualifications must be possessed to be considered for promotion and that any exemption granted for recruitment to the lower post would not enure to the benefit of the exempted for promotion. It being the specific case advanced in the counter affidavit that possessing of diploma in Agriculture is a necessary qualification for promotion when the incumbent is a Matriculate, it has hence to be held that the exemption granted to the appellant for his regular appointment as a Field Man would not aid him for the purpose of promotion to the post of Senior Field Demonstrator. The submission of the learned counsel, on this account has to be rejected. Another submission advanced is that the appellant was also entitled to be promoted under Clause (2) of the requirements stated above, viz., that the appellant is a graduate and since he had admittedly 5 years experience, he was entitled for promotion. The fact that the appellant is a Graduate, does not appear from the writ petition and such a case was not advanced before the learned single Judge. Nothing has been brought to our notice that the appellant had obtained the graduate qualification. The only statement made in paragraph 16 of the writ petition is that the petitioner had studied B.A., which does not ipso facto mean that he has passed B.A. We, hence, find ourselves unable to grant relief on the submission.

However, we make it clear that this judgment of ours will not preclude the appellant form satisfying the authorities of his having obtained graduate qualification and to have become otherwise entitled to promotion, which claim, if made, the respondents will deal with at their discretion and judgment.

Subject to the observations, this writ appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.